Why doesn't this ring true?

[Kathyan]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/madd ie/article390363.ece

I have just been reading this story and a couple of things just don't ring true. If, as the woman says, she thought this guy was the girl's father, why didn't she say anything when she went back to join the other members of the party, who happened to include the girl's father? How did she recognise the girl's pyjamas if she (the girl) was wrapped in a blanket? Am I missing something here?

[redcrx]

i think what she means is that she assumed it was that girls father. She didnt say she saw madaleine being carried, but a girl.

I just wonder why they chose now to release an artists impression of someone who could be vital to th investigation.

[Kathyan]

But if she was a friend of the McCanns and was in the restaurant with them, she would have known what Gerry was wearing and that he was in the restaurant when she got back there! Doesn't make any sense to me at all.

[redcrx]

"On the night of Maddie's disappearance in May, Jane, 36 � checking on her own daughter, who had been sick � thought seeing the man carrying the child was �strange�, but assumed he was the girl�s father."

she didnt say she thought it was madeleine and her father.

She saw a child, which was odd presumably late at night, but assumed the man was her father.

She didnt think it was madeleine she may have seen until after her disappearence when she found out about madeleines PJs

[Gromit]

When she saw the girl she didn't know it was Madeline and thought it was a father (not Gerry) carrying his child. When M was reported missing and a description relayed of the clothes she was wearing, then this witness realised the girl could have been M and the man (in the illustration) was not her father but a possible abductor.

Did you know The Sun pitches its reading age at 8?

[Ice-Maiden]

I agree with Redcrx - it's just a matter of interpreting the read. The woman thought that the man she saw was the father of the child he was apparently carrying - NOT that the man was Gerry McCann, or that the child was Madaleine. Even so, I think many people feel that there's something peculiar about this whole case. I think the McCann's were grossly negligent, but are innocent of anything else, but at the same time, just because the Portuguese police've bee made out to be morons, I don't think this is the case either! I think facts will eventually come to light.

[Dusty Bin]

If you were to have visited the Mark Warner Holiday village, and stood in front of the tapas bar, you would appreciate just how close the McCann's apartment was. "Grossly negligent" is be no means a fair description of Madeleine's parents. In hindsight they were perhaps naive, but certainly not negligent.

By the same token, the Portuguese police are not "morons".

They were simply inexperienced at handling such a search and the secrecy restrictions the Portuguese law placed upon their investigation did them no favours either.

[NikkiB]

Interesting that the only person to have see this man carrying a child was part of the McCann party.

[Le Chat]

Kathyan - I feel deeply embarrased for you hun!

[Kathyan]

Don't be embarrassed for me! I obviously interpreted the story wrongly. Although I can't help thinking that she should have mentioned the fact that she had seen something earlier! It still poses the question of how did she see what the girl was wearing if she was wrapped in a blanket? I still think there's more to this than meets the eye.

[chazza]

The child that she saw was not wrapped in a blanket so she could see the pajamas. Just another innaccuracy reported by the papers

[Skreecheeboy]

Did anyone else notice how long it took Gerry to say "no we didn't drug her." I didn't believe what either of them were saying.